
Would a baby boom be good for kids?
Would kids be happier if there were more kids in the world? Getty Images/fStop
This story originally appeared in Kids Today, Vox's newsletter about kids, for everyone. Sign up here for future editions.
The pronatalists have entered the White House.
Today, however, I want to look at pronatalist policies through a slightly different lens: whether they benefit kids. People who want to boost birth rates generally talk about the importance of children to society as a whole: We need more kids, they often say, to pay into Social Security and take care of us when we're old. But what about the kids themselves? Are pronatalist policies, and pronatalism in general, in their best interest?
In some cases, these questions can be easily answered with data. In others, they're more about values. Is a world with more kids inherently better for kids? Is championing childbirth the best way to show kids that they're valued? The answers to these questions are complex, but the experts I spoke to were clear about one thing: If the United States aims to be a pro-child country, we have a long way to go.
The idea that really helps kids
Of all the pronatalist policies reportedly under consideration, one is straightforwardly good for kids, experts told me. That would be the one where the government gives parents money.
Five thousand dollars may not pay for day care — and it may not substantially boost birth rates — but it could be enough to allow a parent to stay home for a few more weeks with a new baby, said Karen Guzzo, a family demographer and director of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. That extra leave would benefit baby and parents alike, research suggests.
The money could also help defray the costs of a birth (often expensive even with insurance) and of necessities like car seats and strollers (which could be about to go up in price). If it helps keep families solvent during a time of financial upheaval, a baby bonus could benefit children in the long run, since financial stability is good for kids' health and learning. 'I'm all for giving families money,' Guzzo said.
In fact, a similar policy already had impressive results. During the Biden administration, the American Rescue Plan expanded the child tax credit from a maximum of $2,000 to between $3,000 and $3,600 per child per year, and made it fully available to poor families. As a result, child poverty dropped to the lowest level on record, and the number of kids going hungry appeared to decrease as well.
However, the expanded child tax credit lapsed at the end of 2021, and child poverty immediately spiked again. Republicans are reportedly interested in bringing the expanded credit back, but the path for any legislation remains unclear. For now, 'it is frustrating to hear that we are thinking of giving one-time bonuses when we already had a plan that worked' to reduce child poverty, 'and we got rid of that,' Guzzo said.
Is it better to be one of many?
Other policies reportedly under consideration, like giving a medal to moms with more than six children or reserving a certain percentage of Fulbright scholarships for married people or parents, are unlikely to do much of anything for kids or birth rates, according to Philip Cohen, a sociology professor at the University of Maryland who studies demographic trends.
But more broadly, it's worth thinking about whether the pronatalist project in general — producing more births — is good for children.
Some observers argue that certain countries with low birth rates have become actively anti-child. In South Korea, for example, hundreds of restaurants, museums, and other public spaces bar children from entering. These 'no-kids zones' make life difficult for parents, who have begun to campaign against them, but they arguably limit kids' opportunities to enjoy and learn about the world as well.
'We don't fund school systems, we don't fund child care, we do not fund leave programs. We are so not pro-family in the United States.' — Karen Guzzo, director of the Carolina Population Center at UNC at Chapel Hill
If pronatalism led to more children and therefore more tolerance of children in public space, or even to child-friendly urban design, it could benefit kids. For example, child-centric neighborhoods where kids were able to 'flow out their doors' and form 'their own little society' would be both fun for kids and beneficial for them as adults by potentially making them more self-sufficient and able to advocate for themselves, Trent MacNamara, a history professor at Texas A&M University who has written about fertility rates, told me.
Some experts worry about the decline of autonomy and free play among children today, and for MacNamara, it's possible to imagine that having more children around could bring some of that freedom back. 'Maybe if you do build a more child-centered society, it's easier for parents to think of kids as running their own show,' he said.
There are also intangibles to think about — the joys (and trials) of growing up with a lot of siblings, or a lot of cousins, or as part of a big generation. Having a lot of kids around helps both adults and other children get in touch with 'their wilder side' and 'let go a little bit,' MacNamara said.
However, because pronatalism often goes hand in hand with patriarchal values, it's not necessarily great for the roughly half of children who happen to be girls, Cohen noted.
It's also not completely clear that a world with more births is always a better one for kids. Around the world, 'the decline of fertility has been a key part of rising living standards' for kids and adults alike, Cohen said. Fewer kids can mean more resources per kid — for example, falling birth rates in the US are one reason that state and local governments have been able to expand publicly supported preschool.
Birth rates falling below a certain point could be bad for kids — if, for example, their schools close. But when it comes to policy, the most pro-child ideas aren't necessarily the ones advocates typically bring up to increase birth rates. Kids need food, housing, health care, and education, and they need 'the confidence that those things will be there for them in the future, and that their families will be there for them in the future,' Cohen said.
Policies that would bring stability to parents and kids include robust paid leave, access to health care before and after birth, and subsidized high-quality child care, Guzzo told me. Some pronatalists have pushed for such supports, but right now, they feel out of reach in many parts of the country.
'We don't fund school systems, we don't fund child care, we do not fund leave programs,' Guzzo said. 'We are so not pro-family in the United States.'
What I'm reading
Three children who are US citizens were sent to Honduras last week along with their mothers, who were deported. One is a 4-year-old with Stage 4 cancer who was removed from the country without his medication, advocates say.
Cuts to the federal government have had a profound effect on programs serving kids, affecting everything from education to safe drinking water.
My little kid and I have been reading Nothing's Wrong! a picture book about an anxious rabbit and the bear friend who makes him feel better. My kid refers to this only as 'the cool book,' for reasons that remain unclear.
From my inbox
Last week, my story about mental health days for kids reached Sean, a reader who is a high school student in California, when he was, in fact, taking a mental health day.
'There is a freedom in knowing that when I take on things outside of school to boost my college resume, I can also alleviate some of the pressure that school puts on me,' he wrote. 'Yesterday, the thought of going to school made me feel zombified and my usual motivation had melted away, but by the time Monday rolls around, I expect to feel at least somewhat motivated to go.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
17 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Iran is holding at least 4 American citizens, rights groups and families say
The detentions are likely to increase the tense political climate between Tehran and Washington after the United States joined Israel's attack on Iran and bombarded and severely damaged three of its nuclear sites in June. Advertisement Nuclear negotiations with Washington have not resumed since the war in June, but Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said this past week in an interview with local news media that he and the U.S. special envoy, Steve Witkoff, have been communicating directly through text messages. President Donald Trump has said that he would not tolerate countries' wrongful detention of Americans and that their release is a top priority for his administration. Witkoff's office did not respond to a question on whether the detention of dual American citizens was brought up in communications with Araghchi. The State Department has said that it is 'closely tracking' reports of Americans being detained in Iran. 'For privacy, safety and operational reasons, we do not get into the details of our internal or diplomatic discussions on reported U.S. detainees,' it said in a statement Monday. 'We call on Iran to immediately release all unjustly detained individuals in Iran.' Advertisement Iran's mission to the United Nations declined to comment on the detentions. Iran's Ministry of Intelligence said in a statement on Monday that it had arrested at least 20 people who were working as spies or operatives for Israel in cities across Iran. The four detained Iranian Americans had all lived in the United States and had traveled to Iran to visit family, according to the rights groups. The families of three of the Americans have asked that their names not be published for fear it could make their situations worse. Two of the four were arrested by security agents in the immediate aftermath of Israel's attacks on Iran in June, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency (or HRANA) and Hengaw, independent rights groups based outside Iran. One is a 70-year-old Jewish father and grandfather from New York who has a jewelry business. He is being questioned about a trip to Israel, according to the rights groups and the man's colleagues and friends. The other is a woman from California who was held in the notorious Evin prison. But her whereabouts is now unclear after Israel attacked Evin in June and the prison was evacuated, according to rights groups and Kylie Moore-Gilbert, an Australian British scholar who was imprisoned in Iran for two years and released in 2020. Iran is also holding another Iranian American woman, who was first imprisoned and prevented from leaving the country in December 2024. She is currently out of prison, but her Iranian and American passports were confiscated, according to her U.S.-based lawyer who asked not to be named to discuss sensitive information. Advertisement The woman works for a U.S. technology company and runs a charity for underprivileged children in Iran. But after the recent war, the Iranian judiciary elevated her case and charged her with espionage, according to her lawyer -- a serious crime that can carry many years in prison and even the death penalty. At least one other Iranian American citizen, journalist Reza Valizadeh, is imprisoned in Iran. He is a former employee of Radio Farda, the Persian-language news outlet that is part of the State Department-funded Radio Free Europe. Radio Farda has said in a statement that he was arrested in October 2024 while visiting family in Iran. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison on charges of 'collaborating with a hostile government.' Two senior Iranian officials who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly confirmed that Iran had recently detained two dual American citizens -- the New York man and the California woman. They said it was part of a wider crackdown focused on finding a network of operatives linked to Israel and United States. The crackdown comes as Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has encouraged Iranians in the diaspora to return to Iran. He said recently that he would speak with the ministries of intelligence and judiciary to facilitate those returns, according to local news reports. 'We have to create a framework so that Iranians living abroad can come to Iran without fear,' Pezeshkian said. But Ali Vaez, the Iran director for the International Crisis Group, said recently: 'The Iranian government has a sordid history of cracking down domestically following intelligence failures, and seizing foreign nationals as a cynical form of leverage. And at a time when Tehran and the Trump administration are already at loggerheads over nuclear diplomacy, the arrests could add another significant area of contention.' Advertisement The State Department issued a new warning after the war, telling Americans not to travel to Iran 'under any circumstances.' In a statement in English and Persian, it says that Americans, including Iranian Americans, 'have been wrongfully detained -- taken hostage -- by the Iranian government for months, and years. The threat of detention is even greater today.' The news of the Americans' detentions has rattled the Iranian American community, including several people previously detained in Iran. Many of them are often the first point of contact for families who find themselves navigating the frightening ordeal of having a loved one arrested in Iran. Siamak Namazi, an Iranian American businessperson who was held for eight years in Iran before being released as part of a U.S.-Iran deal in 2023, said that since the war with Israel, the number of Americans detained in Iran has grown. 'Some cases are public; others remain under wraps, often due to poor advice that silence is safer,' he said. 'Securing their release must be a core U.S. priority in any future diplomatic engagement with Tehran,' added Namazi, who is on the board of Hostage Aid Worldwide. In New York's tight-knit Jewish Iranian circles, news of one member's detention spread quickly and brought anxiety. Iran has arrested at least five Jewish Iranians in its postwar crackdown and has summoned 35 more for questioning, according to Skylar Thompson, deputy director of HRANA. Advertisement This article originally appeared in


Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
5 reasons Democrats are in good shape
The Democratic Party's approval rating is at its lowest point in at least 35 years, according to a Wall Street Journal poll released last week. In that survey, 63 percent of voters expressed an unfavorable view of the Democrats, while just 33 percent voiced a positive one. By contrast, voters disapproved of Congressional Republicans by only 11 points. These dismal figures are broadly consistent with other recent polling: In RealClearPolitics's average of recent surveys, voters disapprove of the Democratic Party by a 59.3 to 36.3 margin. What's more, Democrats don't just have a lower favorability rating than Republicans, but also command less trust on the public's top issues. In the Journal's poll, voters disapproved of Trump's management of the economy, tariffs, inflation, foreign policy, and immigrant deportations. And yet, they said that they trusted Republicans to handle all of those matters better than Democrats would. Of the 10 issues raised in the survey, voters favored Democrats on only two — health care and vaccine policy. These grim data points have spurred some handwringing in blue America. But just how dire is the Democrats' predicament? Is the party temporarily tainted with the stink of last year's defeat — and poised to rally back into power, just as it did after losing in 2004 and 2016? Or is the better precedent for the party's current position 1981, when the party began a 12-year struggle to escape the shadow of a failed presidency? Only prophets can answer such questions with certainty. In my own view, though, two things are true: • The Democrats' putrid approval numbers paint a misleadingly bleak picture of their current standing. • The party is in much worse shape than it was eight years ago, and will likely struggle to secure full control of the federal government any time soon. Below, I'll detail five reasons for believing that first point, and two for accepting the second one. This story was first featured in The Rebuild. Sign up here for more stories on the lessons liberals should take away from their election defeat — and a closer look at where they should go next. From senior correspondent Eric Levitz. Why Democrats might not be in disarray 1. Disaffected, but loyal, Democrats are driving down their party's approval rating In the Journal's poll, the GOP's net-favorability rating is 19 points higher than the Democratic Party's. And yet, in that same survey, voters say that they would prefer a Democratic Congress to a Republican one by a 3-point margin. This seems odd. Voters disapprove of Democrats by a much larger margin than they disapprove of Republicans. Yet a plurality nonetheless say they would vote for the former party over the latter one. As polling analysts G. Elliott Morris and Mary Radcliffe observe, there is only one explanation for this: Unhappy — but loyal — Democratic voters are driving down their party's favorability rating. This interpretation is consistent with polling from YouGov and The Economist, which finds that only 74 percent of Democratic voters approve of congressional Democrats, while 22.6 percent disapprove. By contrast, 88.9 percent of Republican voters approve of their party's congressional causes, while just 8.3 percent disapprove. Partisans often disapprove of their own parties when they suffer defeat. Republicans had abysmal approval numbers in 2009, yet stomped to a historic midterm victory the following year. And that turnaround was not an aberration: According to Morris and Radcliffe, historically, there is no correlation between how well a party performs in favorability polls taken this far from Election Day and how well they ultimately do at the ballot box. It's unlikely that the Democrats' plummeting popularity is entirely attributable to the disaffection of its own base. The GOP's trust advantage on various issues suggests a broader problem. Nonetheless, the Democratic Party is (almost certainly) in better shape than its approval rating would suggest. 2. Trump is more unpopular than Biden was at this point in his presidency The president's approval rating is among the best predictors of an opposition party's midterm success. And Donald Trump has rapidly squandered the American public's goodwill. When Trump came into office, voters approved of him by an 11.6 margin, according to Nate Silver's polling average. Now, they disapprove of the president by 8.8 points. For context, at this point in Joe Biden's presidency, the public still approved of the Democrat by more than 7 points. And although Trump's approval is unlikely to collapse to the extraordinary degree that Biden's did, there's reason for thinking it will follow the same trajectory. Namely: 3. Americans will likely feel the full impact of Trump's tariffs next year Thus far, the economic impacts of Trump's tariffs have been fairly modest. Those duties have pushed up consumer prices and likely slowed economic growth. But they haven't triggered inflation akin to that which America witnessed in 2022, let alone a stagflationary crisis. This is partly because Trump walked back his most radical tariff proposals. Yet the president's trade restrictions remain extraordinarily expansive, outstripping what many deemed the worst-case scenario during campaign season. According to Yale's Budget Lab, America's average effective tariff rate sits at 20.2 percent, its highest level since 1911. And Trump's current tariffs are poised to cost US households an average of $2,700 in annual income. Americans are not yet paying the full price of Trump's trade policy. The US government has yet to begin collecting tariffs on many foreign countries. And American retailers loaded up on foreign goods earlier this year to get ahead of the president's trade duties. But as America ramps up its tariff collection regime — and companies draw down their inventories — consumer prices will rise. Preston Caldwell, chief US economist for Morningstar, recently told Vox that he expects inflation to peak in 2026, when voters will be heading to the polls. 4. Democrats dominated the most recent high-profile, swing-state election Since Trump's conquest of the GOP in 2016, Democrats have gained ground with highly politically engaged voters, and lost support among less-engaged ones. This trade didn't work out very well in the high-turnout environment of 2024. But the fact that Democratic voters are now disproportionately 'reliable' — which is to say, disproportionately likely to cast a ballot in every election — may help them in the 2026 midterms, when overall turnout is sure to be lower. And the results of this year's Supreme Court election in Wisconsin lend credence to this view. That contest was the one 2025 race that 1) pit a Democrat against a Republican, 2) took place in a swing state, and 3) galvanized national attention. And the Democrat won 10 points, outperforming her standing in the polls. 5. Democrats' best issue is gaining salience, while their worst issue is losing it Finally, the American electorate's top concerns have been shifting, in ways that are potentially beneficial for Democrats. For years, Republicans have enjoyed an advantage over Democrats on immigration. And the Journal's poll shows that voters still trust the GOP to better manage illegal immigration by a margin of 17 points. But Americans are also much less worried about that issue than they were a year ago. In Gallup's polling, the share of voters who say they worry 'a great deal' about illegal immigration has fallen from 48 percent in 2024 to 40 percent this April. A more recent Gallup survey showed that the percentage of Americans who want immigration reduced has fallen from 55 percent last year to 30 percent today. Meanwhile, the share of Americans who worry 'a great deal' about health care — perennially, one of the Democratic Party's strongest issues — rose from 51 percent to 59 percent in April. And that was before the GOP enacted sweeping cuts to Medicaid funding. 1. Democrats are in much worse shape than they were in 2017. All this said, there's still reason to fear for the Democrats' future. For one thing, the party is much weaker than it was at this point in Trump's first term. Eight years ago, voters said they favored a Democratic Congress over a Republican one by roughly 8 points (compared to just 3 points today). Since 2018, the share of Americans who identify with the Democratic Party has also fallen sharply. Seven years ago, 50 percent of Americans said they supported (or leaned toward) the Democrats, while 42 percent said the same of Republicans, in Pew Research's polling. Today, 46 percent support the GOP while 45 percent back the Democrats. Opposition parties almost always gain House seats in midterm elections. And since the Republican House majority is small, Democrats are heavily favored to retake the chamber next year. But current polling suggests that the party's gains will be meager. And in 2028, for the first time in more than a decade, the Republican Party will not be led by Donald Trump. If the GOP retains its advantage on the economy — while shedding its exceptionally undisciplined and scandal-plagued standard-bearer — the party could become even more formidable. This is a very speculative concern, to be sure. But it's worth entertaining the possibility that Democrats' current position is more analogous to its predicament in 1981 — when Jimmy Carter's defeat was followed by 12 years of Republican presidential rule — than in 2017. The previous two times that Democrats lost control of the White House — in 2000 and 2016 — the party's outgoing president had been reasonably well-liked. Bill Clinton had earned a reputation for skillful economic management, thanks to the late 1990s economic expansion. Barack Obama was a singularly magnetic figure, and the US enjoyed relatively low unemployment and inflation in 2016. Both Clinton and Obama's successors won the popular vote in their respective elections, despite the fact that they each were conspicuously uncharismatic. Their losses could therefore be fairly easily dismissed as the consequence of easily reversible tactical errors. By contrast, presiding over post-COVID inflation rendered Biden historically unpopular while devastating the Democrats' credibility on economic management. 2. The party has long odds of winning the Senate anytime soon The Democrats' biggest political problem, however, lies in the Senate. The party's prospects for securing control of Congress's upper chamber — either next year, or in 2028 — look poor. Democrats need to gain four seats to win a Senate majority in 2026. Yet next year's map features no easy targets. The party's best pickup opportunity lies in Maine, a state that Kamala Harris won comfortably in 2024. But that state's incumbent Republican senator, Susan Collins, won reelection by 8.6 points in 2020, even as the national political environment leaned towards Democrats. Her defeat next year is far from assured. After defeating Collins, Democrats' next-best hope for growing their Senate caucus is winning the open seat in North Carolina, a state that backed Donald Trump all three times he was on the ballot, most recently by 3 points. If the party manages to beat Collins and win over the Tarheel State, they would still need to win races in Ohio and Iowa — or else, in places that are even more Republican — to eke out a bare majority in the Senate. Even winning control of the Senate by 2029 would require extraordinary electoral feats. The most plausible path here would involve Democrats beating Collins, winning a race in North Carolina, flipping a Wisconsin Senate seat in 2028, and taking back the presidency that same year (since the vice president breaks all ties in the Senate, Democrats would only need to flip three seats to boast a working majority in 2029, provided that they control the White House). And yet, this path only works if Democratic Senate incumbents also win reelection in every swing state race between now and 2029: Specifically, Democrats would need to win two races in Georgia, one in Pennsylvania, one in Michigan, and one in Arizona. This is conceivable. But it is not especially likely. The fundamental problem facing Democrats is that only 19 states voted for their party in each of the last three federal elections, while 25 US states backed Trump all three times. Put differently, the median US state is more right-wing than America as a whole. In practice, this means that — to win a Senate majority — Democrats don't merely need to beat Republicans nationally, but to do so by a hefty margin. For context, in 2018, Democrats won the House popular vote by 8.6 points and still lost Senate seats. In the US, midterms usually witness backlashes against the president's party. But Democrats need more than an ordinary midterm backlash to put themselves on pace to win the Senate by 2029. And without a Senate majority, Democrats that year would be unable to pass partisan legislation or appoint liberal Supreme Court justices, even if they did manage to win the presidency. Democrats might not need to become drastically more popular to win back the House. But to actually run the federal government, they likely need to make their party more broadly appealing than it was eight years ago. This makes their historically low approval rating more than a little alarming.


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
TikTok can shape America's next generation and Beijing knows it
If Washington doesn't act urgently, content pushed by TikTok and consumed by young Americans will result in future U.S. leaders unwittingly parroting China's talking points, advocating warped views and, most dangerously, acting in ways that are in Beijing's interests but undermine U.S. national security. There is admittedly no 'smoking gun,' but TikTok represents a highly plausible vector of intelligence collection. ByteDance, TikTok's parent firm, claims it is committed to U.S. national security, but is legally bound to cooperate with the Chinese Communist Party. The People's Republic of China almost certainly uses TikTok, at a minimum, as a collection platform to monitor public opinion. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. and TikTok agreed in January 2023 to maintain all U.S. data within the U.S., but there are concerning reports of leaks. With 170 million U.S. users, TikTok provides Beijing with real-time, granular insight into American public opinion. That real-time data collection would prove enormously useful, for instance, in assessing U.S. willingness to fight in a hypothetical conflict over Taiwan. But the challenge from TikTok with America's youth is not just collection, but influence. Early evidence suggests this is already underway. A Rutgers study found TikTok suppressed unfavorable accounts of sensitive topics, including Tibet, Tiananmen Square, Uyghur rights and Xinjiang. 'Heavy' users expressed elevated positive attitudes toward China's human rights record and greater interest in traveling to China. Given that the company's black box algorithm thwarts independent verification, we likely have seen only the tip of the iceberg of Beijing's efforts to sway the U.S. public. The algorithm could convulse U.S. domestic politics by sowing discord and highlighting divisions, an outcome that serves Beijing's interest in undermining U.S. cohesion and painting D.C. as an unreliable partner. Indeed, rather than bolstering one candidate or another, TikTok may act as an anti-incumbent tool. In the 2024 election, TikTok contributed to President Biden's low approval ratings, according to one Democratic strategist. In that election, President Trump's support among 18-29-year-olds, which disproportionately comprises TikTok's user base, rose by seven points from 2020. And yet, by April, only three months into office, Trump's support among young people has declined markedly — by up to 27 points. While there are admittedly many variables at play, TikTok can amplify alienation and short-term sentiment swings. Whatever one's politics, it's dangerous for China to retain levers that can subtly shape American public opinion, especially by amplifying dissatisfaction. It's worth noting that as Beijing uses tools to manipulate the U.S. public, especially its youth, it's taking meaningful steps to protect its own young people. Douyin, the version of TikTok used in China and also owned by ByteDance, is required by authorities to enforce a 'youth mode,' limiting users under 14 to app usage for just 40 minutes a day. It also locks them out between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. daily. The contrast is stark: China exports attention-fracturing content while shielding its own youth from it. China's use of TikTok may allow it to influence mass and elite opinion. And in fact, TikTok may be uniquely effective at influencing elite views, by enabling microtargeting. Given TikTok's effectiveness and deniability, as well as Beijing's determination to supplant the United States, Chinese security services are likely tweaking TikTok's algorithms to micro-target key users. Chinese security services can directly shape TikTok's algorithm — rather than merely exploit one built by others — giving it a deniable, end-to-end influence over what users see. Crucially, any elite-focused information operation via TikTok would be even more difficult to detect in the unclassified domain than efforts to shape mass public opinion because of how narrow and precise the targeting would be. For far too long, U.S. leaders on both sides of the aisle have failed to take action against the platform. And the reported decision by President Trump to tell U.S. companies they can ignore the law barring American companies from engaging with TikTok represents a new and immediate danger to U.S. national and economic security. At a minimum, it is imperative to ensure the U.S. is not allowing companies or individuals to engage with TikTok so long as its algorithm is controlled by a Beijing-linked company. But U.S. policymakers need to go even further and consider, for example, more ambitious measures such as national limits on short-video screen time for minors. The status quo is incomprehensible and dangerous: Young Americans are being asked to unwittingly face off against an algorithm that may be a tool of Chinese intelligence services. Allowing this dynamic to persist risks eroding the cognitive, civic and strategic foundations of American leadership. Jonathan Panikoff is a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's GeoEconomics Center and the former director of the Investment Security Group, overseeing the intelligence community's CFIUS efforts at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Joseph Webster is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and editor of the independent China-Russia Report.